ooooooohhhh.
I've noticed that you tend not to recognize sarcasm. I have the same problem. A word to the wise: you need to work on that. Most of our members are kids and half the stuff they say is meant to be at least partially humorous.
While I would oppose the law, I am aware that most people who have 17 cats are not doing them any favors. 17 cats in close proximity are a potential breeding ground for feline diseases, including feline Aids, even if you otherwise treat them well.
Feral cat colonies are denser than that and they're not noted for being ravaged by epidemics of dire diseases. Outfits like Alley Cat Allies just round 'em up, neuter 'em, and turn 'em loose again.
So there has to be a number where you would draw the line and say: OK, that is too many. What is that number???
Obviously it depends on the particular circumstances. How big is the house? How many people live there? How meticulous is their housekeeping? How big is their lot and how close is the nearest neighbor? Is it a location where they can be allowed outside?
The reason most of us would draw the line somewhere south of 100 cats is that we reasonably assume that one person, or even two people, couldn't do a good job of taking care of that many, no matter how dedicated, sensible and resourceful. But there are exceptions to everything.
My wife can take care of eleven dogs, in a 3,000 sqft house with an acre of fenced yard, with just the usual visits from the cleaning lady and some serious research into cleaning technology. I'm sure she could do thirty cats.
As I noted above, it's not the number of pets that's the problem, but the number of different species. She's also got an Amazon and two cockatiels who are more mess and more work than the dogs.